Backward, Christian Soldiers! (Intel-Design supporters equivalent to 'Holocaust Deniers')

New York Magazine ^ | 17 Oct 2005 Issue | Kurt Andersen

[Coyoteman]

For instance the careful study of history does not use the scientific method, but this does not mean that historians are foolish, prejudiced, and not concerned with objectively pursuing facts.

Actually, that is not correct. Historians interpret history. They do not recount the actual events, but they group them, organize them, and attempt to give them meaning. This brings in all manner of bias and prejudice; and these change through time. Ever read an encyclopedia 100, or 150 years old? The facts are the same but the interpretation has certainly changed!

The key point is that history does not necessarily use the scientific method. It has its own methods.

[AndyTheBear]

The key point is that history does not necessarily use the scientific method. It has its own methods.

The point I was defending:

Depends on the kind of thing. Science is great for some things, but doesn't work well with others. It is just one of the ways honest rational people try to determine what is true. To limit oneself to science alone is just sad.

Apparantly we agree that historians have their own methods.

Repeatable scientific tests are great, when they can be applied...but in the pursuit of some facts, knolledge, and truth, they can not be.

Actually, that is not correct. Historians interpret history. They do not recount the actual events, but they group them, organize them, and attempt to give them meaning. This brings in all manner of bias and prejudice...

Um...Part of the study of history neccesarily is determining the facts as well as possible. Often this means looking for written documents or other artifacts, and often means carefully analysing and deciphering such. Thus gathering a body of knolledge in order to make, hoepfully, reasonable guesses. Occasionaly such guesses can be tested by a new find, but the availibility of such is not guaranteed by the rigour of a controlled repeatable experiment as in proper science.

...and these change through time. Ever read an encyclopedia 100, or 150 years old? The facts are the same but the interpretation has certainly changed.

And how are the facts which are the same determined? By the scientific method or by historical methods?

[Coaster13]

"Evolution tries to turn a one celled amoeba into a fish which crawled up out of the sea onto land and somehow turned into a monkey which somehow turned into a human"

"Evolution tries to turn a one celled...into a human."

Take out all that middle stuff and the leap from single cell to human isn't that far fetched. We all start out as one cell and from that turn into something quite complex. I know that is not evolution but it does show how easily complex life forms from the simplest form of life, the single cell. Forgive me if I'm wrong here but from what I understand about how cells work, DNA is the only thing that more or less distinguishes one species from another. Theoretically you should be able to change one species to another if you could just change the DNA in the original cell of the creature. Does anyone know if the cloning people ever tried this? If this is possible then I don't see any reason why random mutation to form new species can't take place. From what I understand, DNA gets damaged all the time causing random mutations. Most of the time these mutations fail but it only makes sense that once in a while a mutation may become a successful new life form if the right DNA changes take place.